Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

opinions on the google native code client

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-10 4:20

/prog/'s opinions on the google native x86 code client for web browsers

i think the general idea sounds awesome but i can totally understand why they released it as open source, any other action (ACTIVEX) would be foolish imo because it will be a BITCH to secure

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-10 22:15

>>38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaCl

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-10 22:32

>>40
It's a gift... and a curse.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-10 22:54

>>39

People actually do think so.

>>40

Ohhhh, you got me.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 3:02

>>18
yes, when someone like google or microsoft releases open source code it does make it more secure because every single nerd in the world will want to take credit for having found a vulnerability in code produced by one of the largest software company in the world

when you release open source code it does not make it more secure, in fact it would be a pretty bad idea

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 3:17

>>44

shhhhhhhhhh, you are telling the truth. It makes the know-nothing geeks uncomfortable.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 3:48

>>1,44,45
Same faggot.
I can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely think security through obscurity is a good idea.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 4:09

>>46
I think you're getting viewpoints mixed up here.
OP thinks "proprietary = insecure"
>>44,46 thinks "open source = insecure"

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 4:17

>>46

If we're talking about information, the only kind of security that exists is security through obscurity.

Think about it.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 4:24

>>48
that's true. but security through obscurity isn't the only kind of security that exists when we're talking about controlling what code is run on your computer.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 5:27

>>48
Give me a string that produces md5 746308829575e17c3331bbcb00c0898b, then I'll believe your bold claim.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 5:38

>>50
md5("Test test test") == 746308829575e17c3331bbcb00c0898b

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 5:52

>>50
That's obscurity. For all you know, I might generate a random string that happens to match that MD5 on my first attempt.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 9:40

>>51
no.

>>52
It's not obscurity. If you're going to insist that it is, please give us your definition of obscurity.

Ah, and, please go ahead and generate this string, I'm waiting eagerly.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-11 9:44

Terrible fucking idea, did we learn nothing from ActiveX
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -